Named person scheme falls apart under BBC interrogation

[squidge]

You said yourself, if the families don't want support they won't get it, so unless this name person or persons if there is more than one child is forced on these families, how will they stop abuse or whatever it is they are supposed to be doing ? Who is going to police these people to make sure they are doing their jobs? You are talking about thousands of people that need training, that need to be audited to make sure they are doing their jobs. Where is all this money coming from to do this?

What I said was that if families don't need support or intervention then nothing will happen.

Probably it's useful to use some case studies to see how it will work.

Class teacher notices a child is tired and hungry. They ask the child what's going on but the child says nothing. The class teacher is still not happy so reports her concerns about the behaviour of the child to the named person. (Headteacher). The police are called to the child's house after the report of a disturbance to find the mum distressed because the estranged husband is threatening not to return the children to the mum after a visit. The police notice that the child's house is a complete mess so explain to the mum that they need to refer this to social work. A report goes to named person. Because that is the central point for all concerns around a particular child. The social worker goes to see the mum and the child. The house is much cleaner but it is clear that mum is struggling with depression and child has been supporting mum with their wee sister hence late nights, not having time for breakfast. The social worker puts extra support in place for mum with a place at a nursery for the wee one and a support group for mums post natal depression. A report goes to the Named Person. The named person can reviews the actions taken in a way that services were not doing before and establishes whether anything else needs to be done. They also can put in place the provisions for young carers which will cut the child a little slack and they keep an eye on the behaviour of said child to ensure any issues are explored promptly.

Child attends school regularly. There is no change in their behaviour, there are no concerns about well being the named person takes no action, records nothing and leaves the child and the family to get on with whatever they are doing.

Class teacher hears gossip that a child is sexually active. The child is 16. Refers concerns to Named Person. The Named Person may decide to speak to the child to establish if they are aware of the need for contraception and the danger of STDs. Parents are not informed.

Child has a black eye. Referred to NP who notes the child's black eye. Police are called to house where mother is beaten by husband but refuses to consider pressing charges - children appear ok. Social workers are called to house where a concern has been raised by a neighbour in an anonymous call that they are hearing child crying and lots of shouting. All seems ok and social worker is not overly concerned. Mother says that child is being "teenagerish" all these things happen in isolation but because there is a concern information is passed from all agencies to the Named Person. The next thing is that child when changing for gym has a really nasty bruise on their leg. In isolation these issues might well be passed off as a one off or not to be followed up but because the Named Person has all the information then they can see that this requires further investigation.

Child goes to guidance teacher (named person) to say how unhappy they are at home. The guidance teacher explores this and finds that the child's parents are arguing a lot and it's worrying the child. The child says she doesn't want her parents told but would like to talk to the guidance teacher about how she is feeling. Guidance teacher agrees and parents aren't informed. Guidance teacher meets with child to listen and support child.

All teachers and professionals undergo training on a regular basis it's called CPD, CPT (lol) continuing professional development. Where there are concerns that a teacher or head teacher or midwife or health visitor is not meeting the standards they should then there are line managers with responsibility to ensure they do so.

[BetterTogether]

You do paint lovely pictures Squidge of how wonderful it all seems so let's take a few examples.

The child who is unhappy at home because his parents are arguing a lot and it's worrying the child so they go speak to their guidance teacher.
But what may not be mentioned is both parents are working full time to maintain the household and the child is demanding the latest computer games which are 18 plus rated and cost a lot of money also the child is constantly playing with their mobile phone and not listening to the reasonable request of the parents to use it less. This leads to arguments between the parents.
Just as equally a credible scenario.

The child has a black eye and when asked about it by the NP gets embarrassed and makes up some story to cover the reality and not lose face.
The family are then subjected to a state intervention which spirals out of control with over zealous NPs talking to the child who now feels unable to change their story.

The child who is tired and hungry but is going through a growth spurt so their body is struggling to adapt as its growing so fast but the NP thinks it's down to something else so instigates a pernicious investigation.

Child is sexually active at 16.
Quite legal no need for intervention unless it is with one of the teachers as per a case today in news from Berwickshire.


You seem to take the view that all households are abusive war zones when the reality is far from the case.

Those that do have issues are already dealt with by Social services so once again why the need for this poorly written, ill conceived piece of legislation that stretches the claws of the state into ordinary households.

Your own personal experiences may or may not cloud your view on what occurs within most homes but they are not all destructive hell pits that require the state to intervene.
What this really comes down to is another colossal waste of taxpayers money by a party that seem to think it needs to micro manage every aspect of people's lives while failing magnificently to run the areas already under its control.

The more you post the more I wonder whether you're not really Diane Abbot.

[squidge]

You are right BT that the scenarios can be viewed in different ways. So let's use yours too. I'll number them for ease.

1. In neither yours nor my scenario does the state intervene. The NP supports the child with their concerns by providing them with a simple sounding board. No need to bring the parents in and no need to engage further support - the child is simply supported to deal with whatever is upsetting them. Where is there an "unecessary intrusion by the state into family life" there isn't. Surely you would agree that it is perfectly ok for the guidance teacher to give the child space to explore their feelings if that is what they want. However, it might be that the child asks the NP to speak to their parents and then they would do exactly that.

2. I don't really understand what you are saying here. In your scenario the child makes up a story like what? My dad hit me? If that was what was said and it wasn't true surely you would expect someone to investigate to make sure that dad wasnt doing the hitting? Even in the absence of any other concerns. Even you wouldn't suggest that should be ignored? If the child said something like "my brother threw a book at me" then with the absence of the rest of the information - social workers report, police report - there would be nothing to investigate. A note would likely be made that child had a black eye but no further action would need to be taken unless there were further concerns.

3. Again, a tired and hungry child by itself would not necessarily be a cause for serious concern in the absence of other concerns. You will note that there were other issues in my scenario which led to an intervention. However, you are correct to say that there is always the potential for a pernicious investigation. To initiate an investigation the NP would need to include social work or health or other agencies. The NP themselves can't go storming into a house a remove a child. Where a NP does something unprofessional or malicious that would lead to disciplinary action and possibly dismissal. That indeed would be an unecessary intrusion but then it would be against the terms of the legislation.

4. And there was no further intervention in this case in my scenario either.

I take no such view of all households as abusive war zones but I know that unfortunately many children do live in situations which are damaging and unpleasant and a few are in grave and mortal danger if no one notices. Unfortunately it is also true that often, in the past, social services have failed to act to prevent these situations.or have failed to make the connections that meant that families didn't get help which might have prevented a great deal of stress, despair and anguish if not actually death.

I don't need the support of a NP for my children just now and I hope I never need it. I'm not arrogant enough to think that just coz im alright jack, everyone else is, or that because I don't need a service it shouldn't be put in place. As a parent I am the best person to look after and look out for my children but not every child has that in their lives. Why would I oppose a service that can make a difference to those children just coz I don't think i need it. I don't have any fear of a professional watching out for the wellbeing of my children at all and if they are concerned raising those concerns.

[cptdodger]

All teachers and professionals undergo training on a regular basis it's called CPD, CPT (lol) continuing professional development. Where there are concerns that a teacher or head teacher or midwife or health visitor is not meeting the standards they should then there are line managers with responsibility to ensure they do so.

What I was saying was, if they are not getting any extra training to be a "Named Person" with all that that entails, then they are just doing their jobs nothing will change.

If you want examples of when things can go wrong in the system. My ex husband reported me to Social Services for reasons I am not going to put on here. That ensued months of visits, questions and intrusion for both myself and the children, which in turn affected their school work because they thought they were being taken away from me. My daughter went from an outgoing happy child, to a child that basically stopped communicating and eating at one point. The accusations were found to be well and truly false. The reason for these accusations - spite.

Another example, I got a letter from my sons school asking me to go to a Doctor with my son as the teacher was concerned he wasn't growing properly, so me, my son and his step-father went to see this Doctor, she explained in front of my son they were concerned about his height, I asked why, she said "well look at his father" I replied I would if he was here. His father was five foot inches, his step father was six foot three. The teacher had just presumed my second husband was my sons father. That left my son with an inferiority complex for quite a while.

Maybe the intentions of these Named People are good, but the flip side is, they can also do a lot of damage as well.

[squidge]

You are absolutely right CPT and that is why there is training, there is a framework in place for establishing well being which all professionals working with children are trained in. It's not perfect and it's not going to be right every single time. But, it's not state guardianship either, nor is it intrusive in the everyday operation. It's horrible being subjected to an investigation based on malicious allegations but this legislation will enable professionals to see more of the whole picture than before.

[BetterTogether]

See what you suggest is normally the work of social services who by your own admission already make mistakes and have some quite serious failings.
By implementing a system which would place all children under scrutiny regardless of whether required or not stretches the system even further meaning it becomes more likely that mistakes are made not less likely.
The wording on the named persons scheme is to say the least poorly defined. Wellbeing, happiness, spirituality. These are very loose definitions and open to interpretation regardless of whether you agree or disagree it's hard to ensure every child is happy all the time.
Some people are just not happy souls all the time it doesn't mean they are damaged in anyway, some are just not spiritual so to put a system in place that requires children to adhere to some tick box culture shows how out of touch those who have complied this act are.
Training and frameworks will never replace good parenting and those that are adept at hiding the truth and manipulating will still pull the wool over the eyes of those involved. What is not required is a catch all act that by its very exsistence places another person within a family unit, despite what you say there will be instances of those in power over reaching and creating scenarios that will only do harm.
All it takes is one pugnacious teacher who is at odds with a parents view on how life should be lived the end results do not bear thinking about.

[squidge]

L

See what you suggest is normally the work of social services who by your own admission already make mistakes and have some quite serious failings. By implementing a system which would place all children under scrutiny regardless of whether required or not stretches the system even further meaning it becomes more likely that mistakes are made not less likely.The wording on the named persons scheme is to say the least poorly defined. Wellbeing, happiness, spirituality. These are very loose definitions and open to interpretation regardless of whether you agree or disagree it's hard to ensure every child is happy all the time.Some people are just not happy souls all the time it doesn't mean they are damaged in anyway, some are just not spiritual so to put a system in place that requires children to adhere to some tick box culture shows how out of touch those who have complied this act are.Training and frameworks will never replace good parenting and those that are adept at hiding the truth and manipulating will still pull the wool over the eyes of those involved. What is not required is a catch all act that by its very exsistence places another person within a family unit, despite what you say there will be instances of those in power over reaching and creating scenarios that will only do harm. All it takes is one pugnacious teacher who is at odds with a parents view on how life should be lived the end results do not bear thinking about.

No actually it's not just the work of social services to identify where there is a wellbeing concern about a child. It may be down to Social services to ACT on that concern but in 21st Century we understand that it requires professionals who talk to each other, share information and understand the whole picture to deal with many situations where children are struggling.

There is no suggestion either in the legislation or anywhere else that tick boxes or the NP should "replace good parenting" or that a NP should be placed within the family unit and I think you probably know that. The guidance around measuring a child's wellbeing is well established guidance which all professionals know and understand and which provides a robust system for assessing how a child is.

Whilst you are right that over zealous professionals can indeed cause harm to children, allowing those children who don't live in your happy supported family to continue to struggle can not just lead to harm, it can lead to death. Arguing that we should not have NP because someone might abuse their role is like saying we should not have soldiers because some of them might shoot someone they aren't supposed to, or because some policemen might overstep their mark and assault a prisoner then we shouldn't have policemen, or that because some nurses have been found guilty of murdering their patients then we shouldn't have nurses.

We aren't going to agree on this BT. The bottom line is I guess, that as a parent of two children in primary school in Highland I am not hearing other parents raising serious concerns about this and I'm not worried about it myself. Have you been talking about it at the school gates or on your parent council? If there are parents at your school who are worried then perhaps it would be wise to talk to the headteacher - the Named Person lol - about it. Or you could talk to some of the other professionals to put yourselves at ease. Like I said though there is a No2NP meeting being held. Maybe ask them to come and hold a meeting in Caithness. That might be helpful.

[BetterTogether]

So care to put some spin on why it's ok for Scottish NHS to share children's confidential medical records with social services, police, education etc etc.


http://www.digitalbydefaultnews.co.u...organisations/


Seems more like bureaucratic megalomania !

[squidge]

No I can't be bothered.

You clearly have never had to try to negotiate the sharing of health and social care records between professionals to enable the child you care for to get the additional support that he needs. The idea that a child with additional needs will have all his health and care requirements in one place accessible to professionals involved in his care seems a no brainier to me.

However, you are not likely to agree and may decide its some sort of paedophiles information exchange and I'll have to waste a whole other day when I'm NOT sick calmly explaining things again and again. If you don't know the benefit of sharing information... Now how does the article put it " where appropriate, using proper information governance protocols, so that the best decisions can be made, and the safest and most effective care delivered for children." Then it's a waste of time me bothering.